Education: 1976: J.D., The University of New Mexico School of Law; 1973: A.B., The University of California, Davis.

Career in Brief: 1997–present: US District Court for the District of Maryland (2012–present: US District Judge; 2006–2012: Chief US Magistrate Judge; 1997–2012: US Magistrate Judge); 1984–1988 and 1990–1997: Niles, Barton & Wilmer, LLP (1990–1997: Partner; 1984–1988: Associate, Partner); 1988–1990: Jordan Coyne, Savits & Lopata, Partner; 1980–1984: Office of the Maryland Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General; 1979–1980: Baltimore County State’s Attorney’s Office, Assistant State’s Attorney; 1976–2001: Judge Advocate General’s Corps, US Army (1979–2001: Reserve JAG Officer; 1976–1979: Captain).

What do you enjoy most about your role? It is an enormous privilege to serve as a judge in any capacity, but particularly as a US district judge. I am always learning about different subjects and industries to resolve challenging and complex disputes, so my day is never dull. I also appreciate that I can manage cases from start to finish. This gives me the opportunity to implement creative and inventive procedures to make the system work how it should, and to achieve the just, speedy and inexpensive result envisioned by FRCP 1.

My favorite part of the job is being in the courtroom. I love trials and arguments, and juries and attorneys, and I have always enjoyed the rules of evidence and civil procedure.

What are the greatest challenges of your role? This is a very humbling job. Each decision has significant consequences for real people, companies and government entities. It is a judge’s obligation to reach a decently fair outcome within a reasonable timeframe and at a cost that is not excessive for the parties.

I have a framed quote in my office that says, “In the heart of every lawyer, worthy of the name, there burns a deep ambition so to bear himself that the profession may be stronger by reason of his passage through its ranks, and that he may leave the law itself a better instrument of human justice than he found it.” I think the essence of my job is just that: to leave the law a better instrument of justice than it was before. I try to stay focused on that goal every day.

What advice would you give to attorneys about effective courtroom presentation? Be aware of your presentation to jurors. For example, speak clearly and regularly look over at the jurors to confirm that they are following you. Further, it simply is not effective to make ad hominem, personal attacks against an adversary. Judges like light, but not heat. So frame your arguments in a way that is direct and focused, and draws attention to the errors or shortcomings of your adversary’s arguments respectfully.

Similarly, avoid “angry” examinations of witnesses. Jurors tend to give witnesses the benefit of the doubt and look poorly on attorneys who cut off witnesses or mischaracterize their testimony. Stick to a straightforward cross-examination instead.

Attorneys also tend to request too many bench conferences. While there may be some matters that must be dealt with outside the jury’s presence, repeated interruptions disrupt the flow of a trial and jurors tend to lose focus on the bigger picture.

Finally, when introducing electronic or digital evidence in court, know how you intend to authenticate that evidence. It simply is too complicated an area to wing it.

What advice would you give to counsel appearing before you? Less is almost always more. Judges have a limited amount of time to devote to any particular case and must cut through unnecessary words or argument to reach the core of the issue. This means you should eliminate unlikely causes of action and concentrate on the plausible claims that you can actually prove, and select the best cases for your argument without including redundant string cites. Similarly, at trial, object for only important issues, and not just to make a record or because you can. Be familiar with your evidence and develop it clearly and efficiently.

Additionally, be honest and candid when describing the record and the law. You can try to spin what a deponent may have said, but you will lose credibility with the court if the transcript does not support your interpretation. In the same way, it is fine to argue that one court decided an issue correctly and others did not, but do not overstate the law or precedent.

How can counsel prepare for a Rule 26(f) conference? In addition to reading Rules 16 and 26, and understanding how your client organizes and keeps their records, the most important pre-conference preparation is to think through what discovery you actually need and the most efficient way to obtain it. For example, documents may prove more valuable than interrogatories in some cases and therefore discovery should be phased to have productions from the most critical custodians or data sources first, before requiring additional document productions, interrogatories or depositions. Be creative and thorough when thinking through these issues. Consider the evidence needed, for example, to effectively negotiate a settlement, support a motion for or against summary judgment, or prevail at trial, and try to reach an agreement to exchange that information first.

Discovery should be structured like a shooting target. Aim for information in the bullseye first and then move to the outer circles if and when it is necessary to do so. The District of Maryland recommends this type of phased approach for discovery of ESI, which also can be used for non-ESI materials. My own standard discovery schedule is clear and comprehensive but entitles the parties to fewer interrogatories than permitted by the FRCP. While I am happy to grant requests to modify my order, parties are better positioned to make these requests when they have adopted a cooperative, cost-effective approach to discovery instead of trying to get all information at once.

What are the most significant rule changes in the upcoming amendments to the FRCP? There are three key takeaways for attorneys from the rule amendments. First, the parties and their counsel will be charged with administering the rules outside of court to achieve a just, speedy and inexpensive resolution. For some time, judges have encouraged parties to take a cooperative approach to discovery in civil litigation to further these goals. By changing Rule 1, the parties will bear more responsibility for achieving the objectives of the FRCP through cooperation with one another.

Second, the amendments make proportionality more prominent. The concept of proportional discovery is not new and has been referenced in the FRCP since 1983. However, in subsequent rule changes, proportionality became disenfranchised to a degree, as both judges and attorneys lost sight of its importance when resolving discovery disputes that focused, sometimes exclusively, on the amount in controversy. By including the concept in the defined scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1), the amendments underscore the importance of proportionality analysis and identify the relevant factors courts and counsel can evaluate when undertaking that analysis, including consideration of both the amount in controversy and, particularly in cases with minimal monetary exposure, the importance of the issues to be decided in the case.

Third, the amendments offer a national spoliation rule for the destruction or loss of ESI. Previously, courts had adopted various standards to support sanctions and, in some cases, permitted very severe sanctions, such as dismissal, adverse inference instructions or striking claims or defenses, based on mere negligent destruction of ESI. The new Rule 37(e), which will supersede those decisions, is intended to encourage parties to act reasonably and does not punish parties with these in terrorem sanctions unless they anticipated litigation, behaved unreasonably and failed to preserve ESI with the specific intention of depriving their adversary of that information. Where a party lost or destroyed ESI that it should have preserved, the amendments authorize courts to order remedial measures, such as permitting additional discovery or discovery from an inaccessible source.

Which current or former Supreme Court Justice do you most admire, and why? It is hard not to have a certain reverence for Justice John Marshall and his opinion in Marbury v. Madison. Given the complicated political environment and the precarious position of the judiciary at the time, Justice Marshall’s ability to establish the legitimacy of both the court itself and the doctrine of judicial review in this opinion deserves our admiration.

Each justice on the current court is a remarkable person, attorney and judge. Although it is difficult to single out one of these esteemed jurists, I think that Chief Justice John Roberts has a great respect for the role of the judiciary and cares that the American public share his view. Whether you agree or disagree with any particular decision, his dedication to making the court an institution worthy of respect is inspiring.